Posted: Wed May 11, 2005 4:37 am Post subject: The EU and China and what they are really about.

Quote:

May 11, 2005
Brussels Sprouts
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
In his book "The Ideas That Conquered the World," Michael Mandelbaum tells a story about a young girl who is eating dinner at a friend's house and her friend's mother asks her if she likes brussels sprouts. "Yes, of course," the girl says. "I like brussels sprouts." After dinner, though, the mother notices that the girl hasn't eaten a single sprout. "I thought you liked brussels sprouts," the mother said. "I do," answered the girl, "but not enough to actually eat them."

Mr. Mandelbaum, who teaches foreign policy at Johns Hopkins, related that story to me during a conversation about the two greatest nuclear proliferation threats we face today: North Korea and Iran. Readers of this column know that I rarely write about nuclear proliferation. It is not because I am not interested. I am. It is not because I think it isn't a grave danger. It is. The reason I don't write about it much is because the solution is so ridiculously obvious there isn't much to say. Here's what I mean:

North Korea's nuclear program could be stopped tomorrow by the country that provides roughly half of North Korea's energy and one-third of its food supplies - and that is China.

All China has to say to Kim Jong Il is: "You will shut down your nuclear weapons program and put all your reactors under international inspection, or we will turn off your lights, cut off your heat and put your whole country on a diet. Have we made ourselves clear?" One thing we know about China - it knows how to play hardball when it wants to, and if China played hardball that way with North Korea, the proliferation threat from Pyongyang would be over.

Ditto Europe vis-&agrave;-vis Iran. If the European Union said to the Iranians: "You will shut down your nuclear weapons program and put all your reactors and related facilities under international inspection or you will face a total economic boycott from Europe. Which part of this sentence don't you understand?" Trust me, that is the kind of explicit threat that would get Tehran's attention. Short of that, the Iranians will dicker over their nuclear carpets forever.

So why haven't China and the E.U. said these things? "Like that girl with the brussels sprouts," Mr. Mandelbaum said, "the Chinese and the Europeans are all for combating nuclear proliferation - just not enough actually to do something about it."

At the end of the day, the Chinese would rather live with a nuclear North Korea than risk a collapsed nonnuclear North Korea, and the Europeans would rather live with a nuclear Iran - that Europe can make all kinds of money off of - rather than risk losing Iran's business to prevent it from going nuclear. The Chinese and the Europeans "each assume that in the end, the U.S. will deter both the North Koreans and the Iranians anyway, so why worry," Mr. Mandelbaum said.

Are the Europeans and Chinese behaving cynically? Of course, these are the very countries constantly complaining about U.S. "hegemony," and calling for a "multipolar world." Yet the only thing they are really interested in being a pole for is to oppose the U.S. - not to actually do something hard themselves to stabilize the global system.
The prevailing assumption in Washington is that if something really big is going wrong - like North Korea and Iran going nuclear - it must be because America messed up. Yes, the Bush nonproliferation policy has been pretty dysfunctional, but the real problem is that those parties with the leverage to make a diplomatic difference refuse to use it. (We have already largely isolated Iran and North Korea. There is nothing much more America can threaten, short of using force.)

This is not a joke. If North Korea and Iran both go nuclear, that step may trigger a major realignment of geopolitics - the likes of which has not been seen since the end of the cold war. If North Korea sets off a nuclear test, how long will Japan continue relying on the U.S. for its nuclear shield? And what will South Korea and Taiwan do? And if Japan or South Korea goes nuclear, how may an anxious China react? And if Shiite Iran becomes a nuclear power - in tandem with Iraq's being run by Shiites - the Sunni Arab world will go nuts, not to mention the Israelis. Will Saudi Arabia then feel compelled to acquire a nuclear deterrent? Will Egypt?

We're talking nuclear dominoes.

So there you have it - my annual nonproliferation column. Unless China and Europe get serious about the problem, it's not going to get fixed. And for now, neither one seems to be ready or willing to eat its brussels sprouts.

All China has to say to Kim Jong Il is: "You will shut down your nuclear weapons program and put all your reactors under international inspection, or we will turn off your lights, cut off your heat and put your whole country on a diet. Have we made ourselves clear?" One thing we know about China - it knows how to play hardball when it wants to, and if China played hardball that way with North Korea, the proliferation threat from Pyongyang would be over...

So why haven't China and the E.U. said these things? "Like that girl with the brussels sprouts," Mr. Mandelbaum said, "the Chinese and the Europeans are all for combating nuclear proliferation - just not enough actually to do something about it."

At the end of the day, the Chinese would rather live with a nuclear North Korea than risk a collapsed nonnuclear North Korea, and the Europeans would rather live with a nuclear Iran - that Europe can make all kinds of money off of - rather than risk losing Iran's business to prevent it from going nuclear. The Chinese and the Europeans "each assume that in the end, the U.S. will deter both the North Koreans and the Iranians anyway, so why worry," Mr. Mandelbaum said.

This is along the same line as an article I ran across the other day while surfing around. I can't remember where I read it. Sorry.

The point of the other article was that China is waiting for the US to 'solve' the Taiwan problem in China's favor before they do anything about NK. Furthermore, when the US abandons Taiwan it will signal to the rest of East Asia who is in the driver's seat.

Why were they called the axis of evil? Cause of what they have done and do. They deserved it.

Good lord, that doesn't make it okay to SAY these things. Ever heard of diplomacy? If a big, coked-up angry guy corners you in an alley with a live grenade, do you tell him "Put that grenade away you bloated piece of monkey crap," or do you calmly try to talk some sense into him?

Why were they called the axis of evil? Cause of what they have done and do. They deserved it.

Good lord, that doesn't make it okay to SAY these things. Ever heard of diplomacy? If a big, coked-up angry guy corners you in an alley with a live grenade, do you tell him "Put that grenade away you bloated piece of monkey crap," or do you calmly try to talk some sense into him?

You're gonna get your foot blown off if you're not careful, Joo.

You are right at the same time that doesn't mean that other nations are to kiss up to KJI or ignore NK human rights violations which is what they have been doing up till now because they don't want to offend NK.

We do not need "small ones". If we do, then we sure don't mind everyone building "small ones".

The US does need them, but the US opt not to build them in exchange for certain other countires not going nuclear.

Quote:

To make very clear, we don't need any nukes. Period.

The US needs them but could decide to not build them in exchange for something , but not for nothing.

Quote:

But, there is this curious legacy of countries possessing them not being invaded.

NK should not be. I am not saying the US should but NK certainly deserves to be invaded.

Quote:

And I do find it hard not to agree with such pursuits. That's not to say I support them, but I do understand why it's happening.

NK wants Nukes to blackmail other countires into giving them money.

Iran wants nukes so they can continue their quest to dominate the Persian gulf, support terror and destroy Israel without facing consequences. And lets not forget that the leadership of Iran is opposed to any compromise on the above issues.

Irans' war is not legitimate, that is my opinion but I think that is not far from your opinion too. You would not phrase it the the way I did but I think if I asked you which action of Iran are wrong like their support of terror and teaching of hate you would agree with me.

Quote:

Clinton specifically pointed to proliferation when the US decided to forego the test ban treaty.

The US hasn't tested any nukes either besides other nations weren't willing to go along. The US has in fact been observing the conditions of that treaty.

But do you think that not testing nuclear weapons makes Iran or NK less likely to build them.

Quote:

That, as well as Theater Missile Defense, is not in the interest of the world. It's in the interest of the US.

You mean the US should leave itself open to nuclear attack? Besides like the question above do you think missile defense makes Iran or NK more likely to go nuclear or less likely to go nuclear. I would say not having it makes them more likely too cause they know they can threaten the US.

Quote:

And preventing nuclear war is not an issue solely in the our interest. It's in everyone's.

That requires cooperation.

Well then can you point to examples of Europe supporting the US when Clinton was in power? Before the US decided not ratify the test ban treaty all though the US has not tested a nuclear weapon for many years.

If you can show cooperation from Europe on Iran when Clinton was in office then you woud have a point. But Europe wasn't cooperating with the US on the mid east when Clinton was in office either.

Quote:

Look at the US turning its back on a test ban treaty and telling its "allies" that it will build a TMD system regardless of what they think.

China and Russia won't go along w/ the test ban treaty either.

Russia has sold nuclear technology to Iran and yet Russia wants the US to give up missile defense? The US has no obligation to leave itself open to nuclear blackmail and nuclear attack.

Quote:

Then, along comes Thomas Friedman saying "We've done our best". That ignores all of the above in favor of finger-waving at Europe and China.

Why does the EU want the US not to have a defense against nuclear weapons? Myabe because they don't want the US to have the freedom to act.

The US can not leave its security to the good will of leaders like Ali Khamani of Iran or KJI of North Korea.

Quote:

This ought to be a serious factor in the "Bush got it right" thread out there.

Is it intelligent to "disarm" the one country that doesn't have WMD while the others may be acquiring them?

I don't belive WMDs werer the major reason for the Iraq war Indeed think Bush should have come up with a different reason for invading Iraq. WMDs was just the most easy excuse cause the US govt thought Saddam had them.

However let's note that Iran and North Korea were working on nuclear weapons and long range missiles way before Bush got into office.

Last edited by Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee on Wed May 11, 2005 10:41 pm; edited 2 times in total

Only Britain has any history of being a U.S ally...and is far less inclined to be now that it has a labor government.

The labour party has evolved under Tony Blair. He runs a centre right government. Indeed, under his leadership labour is further to the right than Chiraq's traditionally right wing party. Blair also spent a lot of policial capital backing Bush to the hilt in the war on terrorism, and the Iraq conflict.

Only Britain has any history of being a U.S ally...and is far less inclined to be now that it has a labor government.

The labour party has evolved under Tony Blair. He runs a centre right government. Indeed, under his leadership labour is further to the right than Chiraq's traditionally right wing party. Blair also spent a lot of policial capital backing Bush to the hilt in the war on terrorism, and the Iraq conflict.

Yeah, I don't understand why he thinks Labour would be less inclined to be a US ally.

Labour supported the Vietnam War and the first Gulf War - all before it became 'New' Labour. Also the pro-Isreal lobby inside the Labour Party has always been strong.

North Korea's nuclear program could be stopped tomorrow by the country that provides roughly half of North Korea's energy and one-third of its food supplies - and that is China.

All China has to say to Kim Jong Il is: "You will shut down your nuclear weapons program and put all your reactors under international inspection, or we will turn off your lights, cut off your heat and put your whole country on a diet. Have we made ourselves clear?" One thing we know about China - it knows how to play hardball when it wants to, and if China played hardball that way with North Korea, the proliferation threat from Pyongyang would be over.

Ditto Europe vis-&agrave;-vis Iran. If the European Union said to the Iranians: "You will shut down your nuclear weapons program and put all your reactors and related facilities under international inspection or you will face a total economic boycott from Europe. Which part of this sentence don't you understand?" Trust me, that is the kind of explicit threat that would get Tehran's attention. Short of that, the Iranians will *beep* over their nuclear carpets forever.

So why haven't China and the E.U. said these things? "Like that girl with the brussels sprouts," Mr. Mandelbaum said, "the Chinese and the Europeans are all for combating nuclear proliferation - just not enough actually to do something about it."

Actually Mr. Friedman is 100% correct.

By the same token, Israel's nuclear program could be stopped tomorrow by the US. All the US has to say to Israel is: "You will shut down your nuclear weapons program and put all your reactors under international inspection, or we will cut off all military aid and freeze all bank accounts held by Israeli corporations and citizens in the US. Have we made ourselves clear?"

Why haven't they done it? To paraphrase Mr. Mandelbaum, the US is just like that girl with the brussels sprouts. The US is all for combating nuclear proliferation - just not enough actually to do something about it.

Thomas L. Friedman wrote:
North Korea's nuclear program could be stopped tomorrow by the country that provides roughly half of North Korea's energy and one-third of its food supplies - and that is China.

All China has to say to Kim Jong Il is: "You will shut down your nuclear weapons program and put all your reactors under international inspection, or we will turn off your lights, cut off your heat and put your whole country on a diet. Have we made ourselves clear?" One thing we know about China - it knows how to play hardball when it wants to, and if China played hardball that way with North Korea, the proliferation threat from Pyongyang would be over.

Ditto Europe vis-&agrave;-vis Iran. If the European Union said to the Iranians: "You will shut down your nuclear weapons program and put all your reactors and related facilities under international inspection or you will face a total economic boycott from Europe. Which part of this sentence don't you understand?" Trust me, that is the kind of explicit threat that would get Tehran's attention. Short of that, the Iranians will *beep* over their nuclear carpets forever.

So why haven't China and the E.U. said these things? "Like that girl with the brussels sprouts," Mr. Mandelbaum said, "the Chinese and the Europeans are all for combating nuclear proliferation - just not enough actually to do something about it."

Actually Mr. Friedman is 100% correct.

By the same token, Israel's nuclear program could be stopped tomorrow by the US. All the US has to say to Israel is: "You will shut down your nuclear weapons program and put all your reactors under international inspection, or we will cut off all military aid and freeze all bank accounts held by Israeli corporations and citizens in the US. Have we made ourselves clear?"

Why haven't they done it? To paraphrase Mr. Mandelbaum, the US is just like that girl with the brussels sprouts. The US is all for combating nuclear proliferation - just not enough actually to do something about it.